Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[ZenGum]

That's a disconcerting point from Griff there. The great depression was a significant factor in causing WWII, and the eventual economic recovery was partly driven by the military spending of the 1930s.

So, ah, if this does turn out to be a very bad depression, does that mean we are going to have another big war in maybe a decade's time? Hope not!

[glatt]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

So, ah, if this does turn out to be a very bad depression, does that mean we are going to have another big war in maybe a decade's time? Hope not!

I just read a headline in today's paper that said pretty much the same thing.

Experts See Security Risks in Downturn
Global Financial Crisis May Fuel Instability and Weaken U.S. Defenses

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 15, 2008; A01

Intelligence officials are warning that the deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in the world's most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to respond to a new wave of security threats.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

I just read a headline in today's paper that said pretty much the same thing.


Quote:
Experts See Security Risks in Downturn
Global Financial Crisis May Fuel Instability and Weaken U.S. Defenses

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 15, 2008; A01

Intelligence officials are warning that the deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in the world's most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to respond to a new wave of security threats.

No doubt, esp when Obama begins to cut the military budget. If there is a direct relationship between the cutting of the budget and a catostrophic terror attack it would be a pretty big monkey on his back that would detract from any good he had done up to that point.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No doubt, esp when Obama begins to cut the military budget. If there is a direct relationship between the cutting of the budget and a catostrophic terror attack it would be a pretty big monkey on his back that would detract from any good he had done up to that point.

Yeah the $571,000,000,000 we spent turning Iraq from an isolated brutal dictatorship into a civil war and terrorist training ground has done wonders for our security. I certainly wouldn't want to see that budget cut.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Yeah the $571,000,000,000 we spent turning Iraq from an isolated brutal dictatorship into a civil war and terrorist training ground has done wonders for our security. I certainly wouldn't want to see that budget cut.

Sure, but I am not sure that taking $750,000,000 and giving it to large failing corps is doing much good either for our failing economy now. And of course this does not include the money we are sending to the CEO's, the planned amounts to send to the auto companies, and doubtless multitude of others queing up with their hands out.

And btw, the numbers game with the Iraq war are dubious.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No doubt, esp when Obama begins to cut the military budget. If there is a direct relationship between the cutting of the budget and a catostrophic terror attack it would be a pretty big monkey on his back that would detract from any good he had done up to that point.

The Pentagon programs likely to be cut have no effect on our ability to fight terrorists. You don't need F-35s to stop truck bombs. Suggestions.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Pentagon programs likely to be cut have no effect on our ability to fight terrorists. You don't need F-35s to stop truck bombs. Suggestions.

No doubt about that. But that is not where cuts are made, at least that is not what the Clinton model used. The big business interests are preserved because Congress controls the purse strings and they are not about to let down these perks and lobbiests. Obama seems to be leaning toward a number of Clinton era advisors. There is no reason to think that he and the dems in congress will not do the same. Troop strength will be cut. Overall cuts in troop strength diminish the pool of selectable troops needed for the more cream of the crop organizations.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Troop strength will increase by 70,000, the Governors want their National Guards back.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Pentagon programs likely to be cut have no effect on our ability to fight terrorists. You don't need F-35s to stop truck bombs.

Military has an even bigger problem. Having massively increased spending, the ROI on that money has resulted in much less useful products. IEEE Spectrum recently had a major series on this problem. However that goes right back to a definition of quality. Throwing more money at something does not create more innovation and often results in less innovation.

Return to the lessons from Nam. Massive spending on a war that violates even basic military principles results in a smaller, weaker, and unaffordable military. Lessons from Nam apply to "Mission Accomplished" and the $1trillion bill that will be paid years from now. Monies spend in 1968+ resulted in a weaker military and massive job losses in the late 1970s. A fact that every informed American knew back when George Jr was blaming Saddam for 11 September and those mythical WMDs.

Spending $700million on an F-22 that cannot even support ground troops? What kind of military is that? One that is getting ready to fight an alien invasion from Mars? Well we started it by littering their planet. Or is that one preparing to unilaterally attack (Pearl Harbor) India, Germany or Russia?

George Jr wanted to increase the military budget from $400billion to almost $1trillion annually. After all, under George Jr, we were making enemies everywhere. Maybe a smarter America would invest in solving problems by diplomacy. But then means one talks to everyone - especially enemies existing and potential.

[Griff]

If absurd spending levels are the key, maybe we should go big into future tech like alternatve energy and space exploration instead of clinging to the 20th century junk.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'd rather see that space exploration money spend on rebuilding our infrastructure, waste & water treatment, education, health care, the list goes on...

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

If absurd spending levels are the key, maybe we should go big into future tech like alternatve energy and space exploration instead of clinging to the 20th century junk.

Meanwhile, where are $billions still being spend wastefully?

Everyone with basic technical knowledge knew hydrogen as a fuel was a myth. The numbers posted here how many years ago? But from the Washington Post of 15 Nov 2008:

Detroit Has Plans for Loans to Retool. First It Must Survive.
Many critics point to GM spending more than $1 billion on research on a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which would require an enormous infrastructure investment in refueling stations that isn't likely to take place. GM is still working on that program, though it has taken a back seat to the Volt.

Spent a $billion on something that is technically absurd (but is hyped by MBAs)? And still spending innovation money on things that can not be viable? Just another example of why another $25billion into a company now only worth $1.8 billion is obviously wasted money. And will always be wasted money as long as Rick Wagoner is GM's CEO.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

That's a disconcerting point from Griff there. The great depression was a significant factor in causing WWII, and the eventual economic recovery was partly driven by the military spending of the 1930s.

So, ah, if this does turn out to be a very bad depression, does that mean we are going to have another big war in maybe a decade's time? Hope not!

But who would be the 'new' Germany?