Jack Ma is exactly right. We put a huge pile of money on the ground and lit it on fire killing a bunch of people in the process. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain how this was a good idea but I just don't get it.
[deleted]
Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
51–60 of 207 posts
Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
#52Much of the defense spending has been largely a jobs program that employs thousands of people
$Trillions to employ thousands of people is a bad deal.
Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
#53Jack Ma is exactly right. We put a huge pile of money on the ground and lit it on fire killing a bunch of people in the process. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain how this was a good idea but I just don't get it.
Good idea for whom is what you should be asking. That money wasn't burned, it was sent to the bank accounts of major stockholders in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton etc... Lets be very clear, there are people who benefited and still benefit greatly from US Military spending.
Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
#54While I agree with the sentiment the reality is much more complicated and nuanced.
Both the US interstate system and the Internet came from military roots. Its all about motivation, war and fear of war seems to be great motivators for funding and building infrastructure.
Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
#55The US wasted trillions on warfare period -- they could have just not spent it, and either not run up the debt or left that money in private hands.
Oh it went to private hands. Hands that owned stock in Halliburton, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin etc...
Dick Cheney is a traitor and has exploited the American people, and murdered countless Iraqi and Afghan lives for personal gain.
Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
#56wasted???? if we did not spend on warfare we would not be able to defend infrastructure.
Hell we cant even defend against a caravan of invaders. We need more money in warfare
Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
#57This 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…
We could have that too if our government had unchecked eminent domain power. Is that what we want? Seems to be one or the other.
Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
#58I apologize for the sarcasm but is Jack Ma really a genius for noticing this?
Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
#59The US wasted trillions on warfare period -- they could have just not spent it, and either not run up the debt or left that money in private hands.
I mean, it'd be good if we got good public transports and more help for homeless people. Maybe healthcare and free education as well. What the hell.
Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our roads are bad. We lack decent public transportation. Our internet speeds are slow and overly exspensive. We do not have most of the infrastructure we need. Jack Ma calls it warfare you call it defense. Whatever term you wish to use is fine with me. The trillions we spent on defense in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly was not well spent. We do have an obligation to defend the Ukraine against Russian attacks. That wa…
The deal with Ukraine only requires us to defend them against nuclear attacks, and even then, the only requirement is to seek action in the UN. For conventional attacks, our only obligation is not to attack ourselves. This is such a common misconception. I wonder where it came from. The Budapest Memorandum is short and understandable. Is this just a game of telephone gone badly wrong, or is there propaganda at work?
Thanks for the correction. I suppose propaganda is at play in the misconception. Also it wouldn’t make sense for Ukraine to not want a better security guarantee given the history between Russia and Ukraine.