Endless War vs. Isolationism

[masteen]

I know this is a false dichotomy, but given our political climate in the post-Cold War era, this is how many politicians have chosen to frame this argument. So for the purposes of this thread, please try to limit discussion as such.

Would you rather see America continue as we have, economically driven by the productivity of the military-industrial complex, or would you rather see a Ron-Paulian curtain of isolationism drop down?

Personally, I'm tired of war and the corruption of both domestic and foreign policies to the continuance of it. I'm willing to pay twice as much for t-shirts.

[Avestan]

Do you think that China as the world's only superpower paying for influence worldwide ends well for us domestically? I doubt it.

[Jice Virago]

Isolationism might have worked back when we actually manufactured stuff here, but now that we are basically nothing but a consumer state its impossible.

[miir]

Isolationism might have worked back when we actually manufactured stuff here,

But isn't the US the world's leading manufacturer of bad debt?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

we could eliminate almost all of our debt by ending all funding for aid to other countries.

[kyoukan]

You're going to eliminate most of your debt by ending your 47 billion dollar per year foreign aid budget? Really? You cannot possibly be this stupid.

[miir]

You're going to eliminate most of your debt by ending your 47 billion dollar per year foreign aid budget? Really? You cannot possibly be this stupid.

Actually, he is right if you figure in a 300-400 year timeline.

[Xouqoa]

I don't think we should be totally isolationist, like pre-WW1/2, but I would like to see a great reduction of foreign military bases and personnel. We're a bit too imperial and spread out for my liking.

I would like for our politicians to focus more on domestic problems and let other countries sort out their own issues. Our contribution to foreign affairs should be diplomatic. Mediation, advice and perhaps occasionally monetary contributions. Our only foreign military action should be mandated through NATO and/or the UN.

Scale the military budget back, and refocus it on domestic defenses and research. I don't think we should eliminate it completely or anything like that, just shift its focus and reduce operating costs by keeping it within our borders.

Re-establish a manufacturing base in this country. We need to make things.

Upgrade our domestic infrastructure. Electric grids, roads, high speed rail, water delivery systems... all of these things need to be created, maintained, or updated.

None of this will happen, of course, until some other changes are made to the way our system of government works, but it would be nice.

[Aabidano]

Re-establish a manufacturing base in this country. We need to make things.

That's the base of the pyramid and it requires a degree of protectionism\regulation to happen. Unfortunately Wall St isn't interested as the profit horizon is past 6 months.

We're not competing on a level field internationally. Until there is a financial driver for American businesses to sell internally produced goods we're going to continue to spiral downwards.

Selling American goods overseas is a parallel issue, one of the biggest problems there isn't so much making the sales, but actually getting the profits back in the form of cash. China is the worst I'm aware of in that respect, they're royally shafting most of the world. Companies don't build R&D centers in China because they want to as much as only 15 cents on the dollar is allowed to leave China as cash.

Most of the value in the manufacture and sale of many GM cars stays entirely in China for instance due to the past greed and stupidity of GM management and Wall street, compounded by US trade policy.

[Jice Virago]

There is also the issue that until an actual credible defense against the nuclear genie is magically created, we cannot be isolationist and let the rest of the world go to shit. Globalization is, however, the barbarian horde that brought down this empire. Its laughable that people thought we would be bringing the rest of the world up to our standard of living when, given finite resources, only the opposite could inevitably happen. Short term greed over long term planning fucked us on a lot of fronts, mostly because of the way the financial universe functions. When CEOs make stupid amounts of money, no matter how they perform, and get to hop from golden parachute to golden parachute as the companies and communities implode in their wake, there just is not any incentive for any sort of long term strategy in shaping the economy/foreign policy. Everyone is out for themselves at this point.

[Aabidano]

Globalization is, however, the barbarian horde that brought down this empire. Its laughable that people thought we would be bringing the rest of the world up to our standard of living

I agree, but as mentioned elsewhere it's not going to go away either. We have a history of shipping profitable industries out of the country to squeak that extra couple cents profit out of every dollar, to the inevitable detriment to everyone except the few at the top, at the time it happens.

That sort of short sighted greed seems to be built into US public corporations as we've been running through the same cycle for ~150 years since becoming an industrial nation. Even if you don't take the reporting at face value it's pretty obvious what's been behind most of the booms and ruinous busts since before the civil war.

For the Tea Party to deliver on their rhetoric there are the base issues like these they'd have to address. Given who their financial backers are it will never happen.

[Neroon]

Here's a study from the University of Massachusettes:

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf ... g_2011.pdf

Go about halfway down to see the tables showing the basics of what they are saying. Military spending provides far less jobs than other uses for tax dollars. Saying job creation is a benefit of military spending is not really accurate. It would be better to say it creates more jobs than burning the money, but not more than a lot of other types of spending.

[masteen]

Here's a study from the University of Massachusettes:

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf ... g_2011.pdf

Go about halfway down to see the tables showing the basics of what they are saying. Military spending provides far less jobs than other uses for tax dollars. Saying job creation is a benefit of military spending is not really accurate. It would be better to say it creates more jobs than burning the money, but not more than a lot of other types of spending.

Actually, if I read their charts right, burning the money (ie tax for personal spending) DOES generate more jobs than defense spending.

[Jice Virago]

Not to suddenly reverse gears and become a hawk, but I have to wonder how much the service industries that support those projects were factored into the math. Of course, internal infastructure generates the same kind of service industry business, has tangible visible bennefits to the electorate, and creates a framework for manufacturing industries, so thats what I would like to see more of our money pumped into.

[masteen]

It's completely fair to ask those questions. The problem in America is that we're not allowed to.

[Aabidano]

Not to suddenly reverse gears and become a hawk, but I have to wonder how much the service industries that support those projects were factored into the math. Of course, internal infastructure generates the same kind of service industry business, has tangible visible bennefits to the electorate, and creates a framework for manufacturing industries, so thats what I would like to see more of our money pumped into.

Pre-00s defense spending in either maintenance or build up mode also meant training military folks to run the show, adding a steady stream of skilled and semi-skilled 22-25 year olds the workforce. The "ground pounder" segment of any military was traditionally only perhaps 15% of the total force.

Then there's the GI bill, etc... that props up the educational system and acts as a sort-of safety valve for those that wish to take that route. Giving smart but poor kids a way to succeed.

Post-00 defense spending goes to a much smaller number of contractors working at higher rates, the overall spend doesn't change much despite that being the stated goal. The overall benefit to the economy and society at large would seem to be much smaller. Makes Halliburton, et al. a lot of cash though. Lot's of "extra" unskilled 18 year olds floating around too.

[masteen]

Lot's of "extra" unskilled 18 year olds floating around too.

Ironic that they created the very demographic that is now protesting their bullshit.