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

Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–146 of 146 posts

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#141

Post by lifeisstillgood »

EpicEng wrote: post #123
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

making us more of a socialist civilisation .. ?

Yes. Things may look quite a bit different without ~700B in US NATO funding.

Normally I would not do this but it's worth checking this as it has seemed a big contentious issue and I wanted to get a view

So USA total expenditure on defence is around the 700bn mark - at about 4% GDP roughly double the major EU countries at the 2% Nato recommended mark. The UK is listed below at 50bn (~2%) but I happen to know the UK Blue Book has 95 Bn - so even basic accounting is a difficult issue these days...

However this is not the same as the Nato budget or "contributions" - the NATO countries contribute very little to NATO specifically (a building in Brussels etc). An aircraft carrier belonging to the US Navy still belongs to the US Navy whether it's on NATO exercises or on patrol by Hawaii.

I think Trump makes a fair point saying those that are not spending 2% on defence should increase the defence expenditure as they agreed - but equally that is mostly considered an internal political decision. Having international agreements that get in the way of internal politics is ... well Brexit, NAFTA, most wars ...

Interesting to do a little research and get an understanding of the problem - thank you for the prompting - but I think the USA is not going to stop spending 700bn - the issue is will they step away from a mutual defence pact?

In the end I can still be a well armed socialist ;-)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_militar...

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_...

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/distorted-nato-funding-fig... (little disappointed by fact check article quality here)

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#142

Post by kadendogthing »

merpnderp wrote: post #108
kadendogthing wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is that reasonable when heath-care costs, at 20% of the economy, are increasing at 10+% a year? Yes. One, because cash flow one way doesn't justify cash flow another way. Regardless of other costs. So I'm not sure how one relates to the other. Purchasing power and real wages don't necessarily mean you have more money to spend freely. It's a way of looking at how average workers are getting their slice of the pie, so…

Lol, you can't use health care and capitalism in the same sentence. The most heavily regulated and government controlled industry happens to also be the poorest ran and most corrupt? So many carveouts for the politically connected? State mandated hospital sections to limit competition? The whole industry is a horror show of the dumbest most self defeating rules imaginable, and yet capitalism takes the blame?

>you can't use health care and capitalism in the same sentence.

I most certainly can. Because the poorly defended ideas of capitalism have infected the healthcare system. It is principally the reason why healthcare in the U.S. is in such a sorry state, as I outlined earlier. You can't sit there and invoke a no true scotsman just to validate voodoo economics.

We see other systems working just fine. You should ask yourself "what does it look like if I my ideas and perceptions are wrong."

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#143

Post by EpicEng »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #141
EpicEng wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Things may look quite a bit different without ~700B in US NATO funding.

Normally I would not do this but it's worth checking this as it has seemed a big contentious issue and I wanted to get a view So USA total expenditure on defence is around the 700bn mark - at about 4% GDP roughly double the major EU countries at the 2% Nato recommended mark. The UK is listed below at 50bn (~2%) but I happen to know the UK Blue Book has 95 Bn - so even basic accounting is a difficult issue these days.…

>However this is not the same as the Nato budget or "contributions" - the NATO countries contribute very little to NATO specifically (a building in Brussels etc). An aircraft carrier belonging to the US Navy still belongs to the US Navy whether it's on NATO exercises or on patrol by Hawaii.

Sure, but that carrier costs a lot of money to operate. If we're doing so in accordance with a NATO treaty/policy/request then it's still an expense.

Of course the US doesn't do this for completely altruistic reasons. We obviously have a vested interest in the stability of western Europe and the safety of our allies. That does not change the fact that the US contributes the vast majority of resources used to defend NATO allies and that things in that region would look quite a bit different if e.g. we decided to massively scale back.

It is complicated however and I don't pretend to have a high level of understanding on all of the details. There's a lot I could learn here.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#144

Post by apta »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #114
apta wrote: post #111

Two things that can have a major positive impact: end usury/interest, end artificial inflation.

Interest != usury. And what do you mean by "artificial" inflation? QE?

Any amount of money you owe on a loan (whether it be a fixed amount, like 1 cent per 10,000 usd or a percentage) is usury. It is bad because it exploits people in need, and people with money get more money doing basically nothing. Do not distinguish between the two based on how much interest gets charged, it's all the same. As far as I'm aware, what are known as Abrahamic religions made no distinction between the two. It's a modern invention.

Most inflation today is artificial, banks print more money to stimulate people spending more money. This is one summary I came across: https://www.quora.com/What-is-artificial-inflation

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#145

Post by lifeisstillgood »

EpicEng wrote: post #143
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally I would not do this but it's worth checking this as it has seemed a big contentious issue and I wanted to get a view So USA total expenditure on defence is around the 700bn mark - at about 4% GDP roughly double the major EU countries at the 2% Nato recommended mark. The UK is listed below at 50bn (~2%) but I happen to know the UK Blue Book has 95 Bn - so even basic accounting is a difficult issue these days.…

>However this is not the same as the Nato budget or "contributions" - the NATO countries contribute very little to NATO specifically (a building in Brussels etc). An aircraft carrier belonging to the US Navy still belongs to the US Navy whether it's on NATO exercises or on patrol by Hawaii. Sure, but that carrier costs a lot of money to operate. If we're doing so in accordance with a NATO treaty/policy/request then i…

>>> t the US contributes the vast majority of resources used to defend NATO allies ...

That seems unlikely ... i mean all the armies of the non-US nation's are by definition based in Europe.

>>> things in the region would look different

absolutely- but there is a world of difference between sabre rattling in order to get changed spending commitments and some positive domestic press and a truly isolationist foreign affairs policy

(Yes the US will look East more than West for the future, and that will mean scaling back. But Russia remains belligerent.)

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#146

Post by posterboy »

clavalle wrote: post #109
posterboy wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just saying it's the decisions that are arbitrary, not the rules. OP implies that judgement should be not just within the limits of the law, but dictated by it. Truly, the cut off where a law's guidance ends and judgement begins is rather arbitrary. Exegesis of law is difficult. OP takes the principled stance that law exists to conserve the power of governance (totalitarian). You take the stance that judges ar…

Your analysis assumes that all monopolies are created equal -- that a monopoly on violence is the same as a monopoly on a commodity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Not if power is derived from goods. Goods of limited accessibility are by definition no commodity, though, so you would be right in that sense.
Post reply on HN